Good gun story

[hardnox]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/17/826081/-The-day-the-Klan-messed-with-the-wrong-people#

[rawhide]

Please send article to GTO

[hardnox]

As Frederick Douglass famously said about what protection Freedmen had against the Fugitive Slave Act, "a good revolver." That's a thorny constitutional subject, though, because the original Constitution expressly required all states to respect the legal ownership of slaves. Although it didn't condone the kidnapping of freedmen- although their right to bear arms wasn't clear in all jurisdictions.

Since the Constitution clearly only expressly protects gun ownership for a Well Regulated Militia, a more valid legal argument would fall under Equal Protection- a clear historical inequality of minorities rights to bear arms in order to protect themselves from the majority.

[r3020]

---

@hardnox wrote:

As Frederick Douglass famously said about what protection Freedmen had against the Fugitive Slave Act, "a good revolver." That's a thorny constitutional subject, though, because the original Constitution expressly required all states to respect the legal ownership of slaves. Although it didn't condone the kidnapping of freedmen- although their right to bear arms wasn't clear in all jurisdictions.

Since the Constitution clearly only expressly protects gun ownership for a Well Regulated Militia, a more valid legal argument would fall under Equal Protection- a clear historical inequality of minorities rights to bear arms in order to protect themselves from the majority.

---

Proof the second amendment is needed for personal protection.

[Red Steele]

is it Nutz or someone that actually has some cred?

Sampling, from Wiki, of early constitutional scholars.

Scholarly commentary

 

 

The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.^[124] Tucker wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.^[125]

In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."^[124] Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker's annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.^[126]

Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."^[124]

William Rawle

Tucker's commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game," portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom," yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" that it "cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "[a] very small proportion of the people[.]"^[127] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.^[128]

Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:^[129]

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.^[129][130]

Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that "this right [to bear arms] ought not...be abused to the disturbance of the public peace" and observed, paraphrasing Coke, that "[a]n assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace."^[127]

Joseph Story

Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution^[131] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.^[132][133]

Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.^[133]

Lysander Spooner

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.^[134] Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.^[135] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.^[136]

The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.^[137]

Timothy Farrar

In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”:^[123][138]

The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to "life, liberty, and property," to "keep and bear arms," to the "writ of habeas corpus" to "trial by jury," and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or or even by the government itself.

Judge Thomas Cooley

Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,^[139][140] and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the "right of the people":^[141]

It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

[r3020]

For Nox theory to be correct one has to believe the only ones entitled to self defense are those who belong to a regulated militia. The serfs are to bow down and obey.

[Samthehumble]

"a more valid legal argument would fall under Equal Protection- a clear historical inequality of minorities rights to bear arms in order to protect themselves from the majority."

You don't believe that in the slightest.  The realm of rights are not controlled by skin color, sex, or ethnicity.  A minority is anyone not in agreement with the majority, in other words an individual's (the minority) right to free speech cannot be restricted even if the majority wishes to.    According to what you say above the minority who did not want to surrender property to the majority would be just in defending their property with arms from the desires of the  majority.  This is clearly not something you believe.

[hardnox]

I happen to think that in McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court decded correctly- the right to keep a handgun in a home seems quite reasonable.

That doesn't mean that the right to keep an RPG is or that the owner needn't be subjected to background checks with reasonable excludable conditions. Or necessarily that the right to either open or concealed carry outside the home need be granted perfunctorily.

What I'm talking about is "they're coming to take my guns" hysteria. In that case, the people who should be most concerned about that are the marginalized who are most likely to be treated unequally under any law.

I'm just guessing but pretty darn sure that there are counties in Indiana, not to mention the deep south, where it is a lot more likley for a white man to get a concealed carry permit than a black or hispanic citizen.

[Red Steele]

Nice story...and once we get the agitator in chief and his assistant agitator  out of power, maybe America can drift back towards a time like that of the story where Americans were assimilating and we had a common narrative that communities were trying to adopt to. The men of color in that story were mainstream Americans, fighting back against oppression for being simply men of color.

Contrast that with the Ferguson incident and riots, and its a community, agitated by Sharpton, Barry, Eric and other jack@sses going up against a community police force trying to do their best.

[gough whitlam]

Hey Steele. Do you feel better now that is off your chest? That's good mate. Like a good fart, it is better out than in but both are of the same consistency.